When "safe" isn't safe at all

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Canterbury earthquakes has unearthed no shortage of information, some of which will help those grieving for loved ones find closure, and some which may well help prevent future disasters.

But surely, of all the detail that has come out in the wake of February's tragedy, among the most significant must be yesterday's revelation that workers inside the Pyne Gould Corporation (PGC) building were repeatedly told after the magnitude-7.0 September 2010 earthquake that their office tower was safe to occupy.

As we now all know, when the February 22 earthquake struck, the PGC building collapsed, killing 18 people.

And yet, despite some people raising fears over the 40-year-old building's safety after September's quake, five separate reports over several months all concluded that the building was safe.

It's easy to point fingers and apportion blame, after the event. None of the engineers responsible for the reports would have envisaged another earthquake striking with the devastating ferocity of February's big shake.

But the fact there was such an overwhelming quantity of official information backing the future safety of a building which then failed in such horrific circumstances means tough questions need to be asked about the assessment process being used around our earthquake-damaged structures.

Are the engineering tests used of worldwide best-practice standard?

It's obvious as to why this might not be the case - earthquakes of the magnitude of those which struck our largest South Island city have historically been a rarity in this country.

But things are different now - not only is there irrefutable proof that the geographic landscape which we inhabit has changed forever, but the blessed veil of ignorance surrounding the consequences of a large earthquake in this country has been removed from our eyes in the most awful of fashions.

While the PGC component of the commission of inquiry will initially focus on why the building collapsed, the far more important section will be the investigation into the nature and effectiveness of the assessments after the September 4 earthquake.

When it comes to assessing the future safety of damaged buildings in this country, there can be no room for ambiguity, no margin of error.

As too many families discovered on February 22, the price we may otherwise pay is far too steep.

Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz